Just to be nonreligious, a dude was tried, convicted and killed for his beliefs. Seriously, that happens a ton throughout history. Everyone knows MLKjrs story, not too many people know about William Lewis Moore.

I do get what your saying, however you example is perfect while William Lewis Moore isn't a household name, I can find contemporary accounts of him and why he was murdered and his significance even if it didn't have that lasting everyone knows who he is appeal.
This is because we are a people that keep records.
The Romans and the Jews also where impeccable record keepers. I have seen amazing historical investigations where they have biographied the occupants of tombs finding invoices and journal entries about their lives.
You would think a trail of significance would spawn some sorts of a contemporary accounting.
For that matter where did the two Roman historians I mentioned earlier get their accounts?
Don't get me wrong I know a lack of evidence isn't proof of lack. I also get that records and the what not can be lost to the sands of time.
I get that Pilot most likely is real, him being pressured by the local elders I am more skeptical about with out any sort of contemporary record it will be hard to prove one way or the other.

Are you stating that you have watched both? Or, are you trying to insinuate that you have watched both, without actually stating that you have? If you have watched both, I'll watch your recommendation and report back. You must admit, however, that the authors are not comparable by any means.

Originally Posted by goodlun

I love the assumption that I have not. Maybe just maybe its not as convincing as you think it is.

Are you stating that you have watched both? Or, are you trying to insinuate that you have watched both, without actually stating that you have? If you have watched both, I'll watch your recommendation and report back. You must admit, however, that the authors are not comparable by any means.

I have watched both, you watching Religious is pointless however it is funny but by no means an intellectually honest piece the same way the case for Christ isn't.
The thing about Religious is it speaks to those of us who already see religion as silly it is by no means persuasive. No new ideas come out of it.
But all of these type of programs such as "The god who wasn't there" or any of its opposites are always horribly flawed and are not looking to present a compelling and cogent argument. Certainly never present both sides of a debate with any sort of intellectual honesty.

I do get what your saying, however you example is perfect while William Lewis Moore isn't a household name, I can find contemporary accounts of him and why he was murdered and his significance even if it didn't have that lasting everyone knows who he is appeal.

OK. So, you have watched both. As I said that I would, I'll watch "Religious" and I'll report back. The only thing is this; the author of "Case for Christ" was an atheist with a PhD. who set out to disprove the existence of Christ, only to conclude that Christ must have existed. Mahr was a comedian who set out to prove that Christ didn't exist, and used comedy to prove that he didn't. Can you see the difference?

Originally Posted by goodlun

I have watched both, you watching Religious is pointless however it is funny but by no means an intellectually honest piece the same way the case for Christ isn't.
The thing about Religious is it speaks to those of us who already see religion as silly it is by no means persuasive. No new ideas come out of it.
But all of these type of programs such as "The god who wasn't there" or any of its opposites are always horribly flawed and are not looking to present a compelling and cogent argument. Certainly never present both sides of a debate with any sort of intellectual honesty.

OK. So, you have watched both. As I said that I would, I'll watch "Religious" and I'll report back. The only thing is this; the author of "Case for Christ" was an atheist with a PhD. who set out to disprove the existence of Christ, only to conclude that Christ must have existed. Mahr was a comedian who set out to prove that Christ didn't exist, and used comedy to prove that he didn't. Can you see the difference?

Can you see that Mahr didn't set out to prove anything?
Also don't care if he is an Atheist, Buddhist, Christian, Pastafarian or the what not, nor do I care about his education.
None of that maters when he failed so horribly at applying critical thinking and presenting an honest argument.